(Please stop top-posting!)
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Ben Scholzen <m...@dasprids.de> wrote:
> Well, with the example, there's a good reason to have them separated:
>
> class Factory
> {
> public static function createFoo<T extends \SomeClass>()
> {
> return new Foo<T>();
> }
>
> public static function createBar<T extends \SomeOtherClass>()
> {
> return new Bar<T>();
> }
> }
>
> class Foo<T extends \SomeClass> {}
> class Bar<T extends \SomeOtherClass> {}
>
> The factory instance does not know to need about <T>, this is purely a type
> for the method to be able to create another class, which requires that type.
> You couldn't put this definition on the Factory class.
What would prohibit this?
class Factory<T> {
public static function makeFoo() {
return new Foo<T>();
}
}
It's perhaps less generic than what you posted, but this demonstrates
that that a Factory *could* hold the definition on the class and not
the method.
To be honest, I don't know why you would bother doing this anyway. I
am a fan of realistic examples and Factories that make Foos of type T
is pretty unrealistic.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
